Logia | The Personal Blog of Paul Hartwig
  • Blog
  • About
  • Articles
  • Seminars
  • Recommended Reading
Wecome to Logia, the personal blog of Paul Hartwig. ​Reflections and resources to enhance understanding of what God has revealed of himself in Scripture.

Church-State Choices in South Africa January 2021

5/1/2021

14 Comments

 
Picture
        
10 Points for South African Christians and Churches to Consider in January 2021 
                                 
​(‘There is a time to be quiet, and a time to speak up’  - 
Ecclesiastes 3:7)

 “Halt! Who goes there?”
For every soldier on border patrol there comes a time when his routine and eventless tasks suddenly become real encounters with an intruder. An unusual and suspicious event sobers him up and reminds him why he is posted there, uniformed and armed. Yet before that sentinel on night patrol braces himself for confrontation it is vital that he establish ‘who is out there in the dark’ and ‘what behaviour is lawful’ between the countries he patrols. His interrogatory summons seeks to clarify such matters and determine his course of action.  

Moving from this hypothetical scenario let me take up the same interrogatory question and direct it to a very current issue: Is it not time for Christians and Churches to give a respectful but firm ‘Halt! Who goes there’ to the State as it asserts itself over their Sunday congregations?  I believe it is. Below I present to you a sort of check-list for soldiers of Christ who are seeking to know what boundary needs to be patrolled between the Church and the State and what behaviour is appropriate for those on either side of that line. The particular situation that has prompted this interrogation has been the South African Government’s temporary ban on all religious gatherings at the beginning of January 2021. It is claimed that such gatherings would expedite the transmission of the Covid19 flu virus. How should Churches respond to this new ban? Should they take it in-good-faith ‘lying down’ or in-better-faith ‘standing up’?

The 10 points for your serious consideration are the following:

1.   A statement that most Christians have affirmed and still do is that Church communities should always obey the State unless the State commands them to do what God has prohibited, or when it prohibits something God has commanded. The words of Paul in Romans 13:1 (‘let every person be subject to the government authorities’) and the words of Peter in Acts 5:29 (‘we must obey God rather than men’) witness to both Biblical State Obedience and Biblical State Disobedience which the above principle seeks to navigate. Christians should always respect and uphold their governing authorities for the Lord’s sake but they are not called to translate that respect into unconditional obedience. As there is a time for children to disobey their parents (e.g., when they instruct them not to become Christians), so there is a time to disobey the State. 

2.  A separation between Church and State was implied by Christ when he said ‘Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God’ (Mark 12:17). His wise words were as radical for his day as they are for ours. Christ’s words point to a separation in people’s responsibilities between the State and their Religion. This differentiation of responsibility means that neither the Religious body nor the State has the right to command the other on matters unrelated to their sphere of responsibility. This is why the Church has no more right to command the State to elect its officials or deploy its troops than the State has to appoint pastors or regulate worship services. These two social realms are autonomous (self-governing) and have no jurisdiction over each other since their membership, policies, practices and natures are different.   

3.  The modus-operandi (‘mode-of-operation’) of the Church and the State is totally different. The State has a coercive and forceful manner of function while the Church has a non-coercive and persuasive one. People attend worship services freely and voluntarily, but pay their taxes compulsively and involuntarily. In the Church ‘you ought to’ is the motive, but in the State it is ‘you must’.  This is why any compelling ‘must’ commands issued by the State over ecclesiastical affairs are an alien intrusion into the nature of the Church and contrary to how it functions. The government may appeal to Churches to temporarily cease congregating, but they cannot order them to do so.  

4.  When the State believes that the welfare of its citizens is somehow compromised by their congregating together, it does not have the right to override the autonomy of the Church and temporarily confiscated its keys. Since the Church is made up of citizens, the State may command her citizens in matters of state affairs but it may not command them in matters of religious affairs. Since our government did not criminalize the sexual choices of its individuals to prevent the transmission of HIV Aids, I believe they should not criminalize the religious freedoms of its citizens in order to prevent the transmission of Covid19. Yes, a citizen may be mandated by the State to wear a mask, but they cannot be criminalized for going to Church.  

5.  We must reaffirm that the primary social unit of our society is the family and that it precedes both the State and the Church in history and human experience. It is a domain that is also autonomous and should not be controlled by the State or the Church. The freedom of the family unit to choose its own language, number of children, values, beliefs etc., should be upheld by all citizens and Churches. Recognising these autonomous realms means that the State can no more dictate to Churches how they should conduct their own affairs than they can dictate to our children who they should marry or what their vocations should be. We do not accept the latter and neither should we accept the former.  

6.  The State in SA is increasingly encroaching upon the integrity and autonomy of both the family and the Church. Our State wants to regulate practices in nuclear families (such as child-discipline, sexual values etc.) and coerce the family to comply with its ideologies. The temporary legal banning of Church gatherings is characteristic of this trend of the State to overreach into realms not under its authority. There is much to convince us that our Government considers itself sovereign in regulating the behavior of its citizens and there is little to gainsay the conclusion that it is fast moving in the direction of state absolutism.  

7.  Many statutory principles and laws of the SA government give Christians every reason to question its morality and integrity, including the science it bases its practices on. If we consider our government’s policies on the beginning of human life, natural gender identity, the nature of marriage and its views on sexual ethics, the Christian in SA finds the values of its government opposed to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Biblical Churches believe that our State’s position on these basic and fundamental matters is destructive to human society and reveals an ignorance in knowing what is actually good for its citizens. The position of our government on these matters makes any form of State interference in ecclesiastical matters all the more alarming.
 
8.  In the Covid19 pandemic, the downgrading of Church and Christian ministry is evident when the State designates them as ‘non-essential services’. Yet throughout most of human history, societies have responded to crises of far larger proportions with calls to prayer in Church buildings and have attended to the channels of communication with the Creator. Regardless of the issues of viral transmission and the wise application of ways to interrupt transmission, the temporary ban on religious gatherings imposes a secular humanistic ideology on a population of which many still believe that God can be trusted more than pharmaceutical companies. In such a critical hour the ministry of the Church is a ‘most-essential-service’ in serving the people of our land.  

9.  The current Government distinction between casinos, gyms, restaurants, Malls, cinemas etc. and religious gatherings is blatantly discriminatory. Gatherings unrelated to economic matters have received harsher treatment and their assemblies have been disallowed. Does not this discrimination and marginalization of the Church reveal the economic motive of many of the current regulations imposed on citizens in SA? Permitting Churches to use their own discretion and keep their doors open for ‘whosoever will’ could have persuaded us of the integrity and impartiality of these recent policies.     

10.  Lastly, it is to be sadly noted that too many Christians consider public Sunday gatherings a non-essential for their faith, and have been quite willing to exchange public Sunday gatherings for the more comfortable internet options at home. Cultural conveniences and the privatization of Christianity have made Christians soft and compliant to the State's advances. Too many Churches have handed over their keys to the State, even though it’s only for two weeks (or three...). But a precedent has been set and a border line has been crossed. The State now believes it has a right to those keys under circumstances it unilaterally determines. Should not such Church compliance with this ongoing State overreach be of greater concern than the overreach itself? Have the soldiers of Christ fallen asleep? Do they know that there is a border to guard and country to defend? “For the hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber” (Apostle Paul, Romans 13:11)
                                                                                                                                    Dr Paul Hartwig  (03/01/ 2021)




14 Comments
Thembelani
5/1/2021 15:13:23

Wow!! This is profound doc. Thank you very much for giving a biblical insight in what is happening between the church and state. May the good Lord continue to you you.
Thembelani Maqajana
Your student at CTBS

Reply
Paul Hartwig
5/1/2021 19:24:11

I'm glad it has been beneficial Thembelani...especially to some past students of mine.

Reply
Bulelani D
6/1/2021 06:42:07

Very thoughtful , engaging and provides good biblical insight.

Reply
Paul Hartwig
15/1/2021 19:27:01

Thank you Bulelani for the feedback. I'm glad it was beneficial and trust it will help us follow Christ closer in 2021.

Reply
Izak
6/1/2021 17:50:54

Spot on. This subject always intriged me way back when studying politics aand still do. State and church must be seperated. What you have said here should always apply. The church do have an own voice.
Pse forward the link to our President who claims Christianity too.

Reply
Joe Shoko
7/1/2021 12:47:27

Excellent piece brother, I am comforted that there are like minded brothers out there willing to speak.

Reply
Paul Hartwig
15/1/2021 19:26:04

Thanks Joe. I can say the same about you.

Reply
Will (Bill) Marais
8/1/2021 10:50:13

Thanks Paul - think I saw you last 30 odd years ago - enjoyed your perspectives shared and confess you hold to our own views here at Josh Gen’ on church and state - keep on keeping on
Will’ Marais ( PhD NT Theology)

Reply
Paul Hartwig
8/1/2021 21:03:36

Hi Will/Bill. Thank you for the feedback. I think I last saw you at a RT Kendall event. Glad to hear that Josh Gen has Baptist views! :)

Reply
Philippe Coetzee
11/1/2021 21:29:00

Hi Paul,

I really enjoyed this. I agree wholeheartedly with you.

God Bless

Reply
Paul Hartwig
15/1/2021 19:25:29

Thanks Phillip. I'm glad we are of one mind on this important issue today. May the Lord give us wisdom and courage.

Reply
Brad Mann
2/2/2021 15:49:08

Hi Paul

Thank you for articulating your thoughts in this post. I appreciate the perspective you have brought, but confess that I don't share all of your conclusions.

I completely agree with you at point 1. There is a time for this. You rightly ask the question - "is this now?"

I also largely agree with you at point 2. Although I cannot completely agree with you, because then I would be forced to agree with everything else you have said and there are places where I differ. However, I do not think it necessary to infer a complete and total separation between church and state from Jesus' words in Mk. 12 (don't misunderstand me here, I am deeply concerned about this separation and agree that it is necessary. There are other areas where I think the state has already overstepped, or is contemplating overstepping at the moment. But my question is one of degree.). This verse, taken in context, is not attempting to set up a total separation between church and state as a system - it is Jesus pointing out that it is possible and right to honour both the Lord and the State.

At point 3, whilst I agree with your observation, I do not believe that this observation creates the necessary ground for your conclusion. Because the two operate in different ways does not create any legal or theological ground for them to have no authority within one another.

I won't go on, point by point, or else you'll be marking an essay and we've both got better things to do ;)

In short, I believe the issue is more nuanced and not as cut and dry as you present. I believe that there have been cogent reasons for many of the actions that the government has taken. It is my hope that they are acting in good faith, attempting to manage the enormous responsibility for the lives of 65 million people. They have made mistakes. They have not always been logical, but it seems to me that their actions, by and large, have been a reasonable response to the crisis at hand. Some of the other government initiatives, such as the proposed bill to allow government to regulate who is accredited as a minister for various religions is for me, much more concerning and much less justifiable.

Theologically speaking, I do not yet believe that we have reached a point that is too far in this pandemic. I do not believe that we to find our injunction to obey God in direct contradiction to our command to submit to our governing authorities just yet. But I agree that it is a line we should watch carefully.

Sorry for the abbreviated essay, and thank you for a thought provoking read :)

Reply
Paul Hartwig
2/2/2021 21:59:51

Hi Brad

It was good to hear from you and receive your thoughtful response. I'm glad you did not take what I wrote 'lying down' but 'standing up' and giving a respectful No on some points! Its what a soldier should be doing!

My article is a call to know that there is (meant to be) a line between Church and State. It needs to be clear, known, and currently observed not just theologically believed. You are wanting a more 'nuanced' boundary line, and I am saying that something distinctive and unambiguous is needed. The times we are in provide a context for asking ourselves: is there a boundary line? where should it be drawn etc. Since you have not stated what a 'relative separation' is all about, I cannot really reply. I believe in a total separation of the State as the State and the Church as the Church. They are two different societies, even kingdoms. Christ is the head of one, the political rulers the other. They may cooperate and coordinate work but have no authority and right to command the other. We cannot be 'nuanced' in matters of authority or 'right to demand obedience'. As soon as we grant any State that right over the church to make decisions about the church as they deem fit, we are no longer a free society under Christ alone. We do not exist or function by the permission of any secular power. The right of the State over its citizens is another matter and one I do not address.
I wonder what your 'authority within each other' entails. You are right that Jesus was showing how we can honour both realms, but his words are also a contrast in responsibility. We 'only' give to Caesar what is Caesar's. Knowing what we must not give to the other party is the material we build that boundary line with!

Reply
Brad Mann
3/2/2021 10:07:24

Hi Paul :)

I hear your clarion call well and would definitely concur that such a line needs to exist. I guess what I mean by more nuance is asking the question of where to draw the line - what are the things that we cannot give to the other party that constitute our boundary line?

Are there things in which (to borrow a phrase from theological discussions) we can be more open-handed and what are the things about which we must be closed handed?

Your article seems to me to claim that the restriction that we currently experience on gathering has crossed that line - indeed that any infringement into what is considered our sovereign territory would constitute a violation.

I struggle to come to so absolute a conclusion. The state has a God given responsibility to safe guard it's citizens (a point which you fairly note that you haven't addressed), but one that invariably intersects with the right of the church to govern itself. And where these two institutions intersect and agree with each other, we have no problem (i.e. should the state have arrested the pastor that sprayed doom in the faces of his congregants to drive out demons), but it is where we disagree that we reach a point of interpretive difference.

To the point in question, does the current restriction on gathering violate the incontrovertible right to self governance in the church? To me, the actual command that the government 'violates' is our call to not neglect meeting together. And yet they have not done this completely. This decision was limited in both duration and application. Yes, we could not gather at churches in large numbers... But we could gather at coffee shops, or on greenbelts (but not beaches or parks...) etc. And this limitation was imposed as an attempt at balancing their duty to safeguard and govern the people. For me, I am not convinced that in the balancing of those responsibilities, they have violated that line...

Should they begin to dictate to us what we must believe, what we are allowed to preach and teach, who we must marry... should they become the arbiters of doctrine and practice, then for me they will have crossed that line (I guess this is an off the cuff attempt at defining the line for myself).

And I am genuinely concerned and convinced that that line will be crossed, in the next few years (it is already happening on an individual scale where Christians in business are being forced to violate their principles, or punished if they do not and it has happened in the area of parental discipline). I do believe that we are soon to become a persecuted people again.

But I do not think that has happened yet, in the government's response to COVID :)




Leave a Reply.

    Categories

    All
    Baptist
    Christian Living
    Church & Worship
    Hermeneutics
    Humor
    Israel
    Jesus & The Gospel
    John Calvin
    Pastoral
    Reformation
    The Holy
    Theology

    Archives

    December 2021
    April 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    December 2019
    April 2017
    September 2016
    August 2016
    September 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    September 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • Blog
  • About
  • Articles
  • Seminars
  • Recommended Reading